GTA V: PC Version

[HeXen]

Wow, this game still on port wish lists? It's not that great really outside of main missions which isn't much different than any other GTA. Overall it gets boring pretty quick and like any other GTA you just end up grabbing helicopters or planes to avoid the monotonous traffic. Half the map has little in it and sure it's fun to race an ATV or parachute the first couple of times but their about as deep as flash mini game.
I fail to see how some AA and higher resolution textures is going to make the game last any longer or make it any more fun than it already is. GTA online just isn't my thing but IF they make a PC port, I'd wait another 6 months cause you know the buggy experience will be terrible and it's not ever gonna look or play much better than a modded GTA 4

 

[futurefields]

and it's not ever gonna look or play much better than a modded GTA 4

I think vanilla GTA5 looks better than any modded GTA4. Yes the textures aren't as nice, the resolution and framerate suck, the jaggies everywhere etc etc... but when you take in the scope of everything IMO it's the most impressive game world ever made. It would be incredible on PC but at this point after GTA4 was released we already knew PC version was in the pipeline, however for GTA5 Rockstar hasn't said anything and there is still no confirmation of its existence.

 

[Fire&Blood]

At this point, I'm leaning towards thinking GTA5 is another RDR, in terms of PC release. If there is a PS4/XB1 version, PC port will come a few months later or not at all.

 

[HeXen]

I think vanilla GTA5 looks better than any modded GTA4. Yes the textures aren't as nice, the resolution and framerate suck, the jaggies everywhere etc etc... but when you take in the scope of everything IMO it's the most impressive game world ever made. It would be incredible on PC but at this point after GTA4 was released we already knew PC version was in the pipeline, however for GTA5 Rockstar hasn't said anything and there is still no confirmation of its existence.

I dunno, maybe ^_^

Personally I think a PC version will only offer higher resolution and AA, more distant details and be buggy as all hell. It will take nodders just as long to get it looking as good as GTA 4 mods and won't look any better other than the art direction is a little better and probably run a little faster.
Yes from the sky GTA 5 looks better with it's better lighting and volumetric fog touches, map is more detailed in some ways but looks like it has fewer npcs and cars on the road than PC GTA 4 vanilla.

 

[cmdrdredd]

GTA5 was pretty impressive to me considering the hardware it ran on. The water was especially nice.

I really enjoyed it too. Most enjoyable GTA game in a long, long time for me. The map was not well thought out though. Expanses of mountains and deserts with literally nothing there. The area was big but pointless and empty. Playing golf or tennis was kind of interesting at first but I had no desire to do it more than once.

 

[futurefields]

I love the large expanses of space, that's one of the main things that makes it feel like LA.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I love the large expanses of space, that's one of the main things that makes it feel like LA.

Sure if there was actually something there except empty space. It doesn't work in the game's favor at all. All it does it artificially increase the size of the map.

 

[Whitestar127]

I recently came across GTA5 for sale at Fruugo.com.

Got a bit annoyed since it hasn't been announced so I just sent an email for the heck of it, asking:

"GTA V for PC does not exist. How come it is available for purchase in your web store?"

Upon which I received the following reply:
-----------------
Hello,

We are very sorry but Grand Theft Auto V (PC) is showing in error, as this is not being released for a couple of months yet. I have requested that this is removed from the website ASAP

We are very sorry for the inconvenience.

Kind regards,

Kelly
-----------------

Now, I have no idea if she knows more than we do or if she's just speculating based on rumors. But that's the answer I got.

Personally I'll keep calm and carry on.

 

[mazeroth]

Shit better be coming out on the PC! It's the reason I've saved up all my vacation at work this year

 

[futurefields]

It doesn't work in the game's favor at all.

Yes it does.

Gee aren't opinions fun weee

 

[HeXen]

GTA5 was pretty impressive to me considering the hardware it ran on. The water was especially nice.

I really enjoyed it too. Most enjoyable GTA game in a long, long time for me. The map was not well thought out though. Expanses of mountains and deserts with literally nothing there. The area was big but pointless and empty. Playing golf or tennis was kind of interesting at first but I had no desire to do it more than once.

Definitely impressive considering and the water too. I was more referencing GTA 5 to GTA 4 on PC and my suspicion they won't do much to actually enhance the graphics....for PC it really could use more polygons on models and realtime lighting and a dose of tessellation if possible....overall I find it too bright and cartoony in an odd way. Likely the city and models in Watchdog will look better but only time will tell for sure.

Sure if there was actually something there except empty space. It doesn't work in the game's favor at all. All it does it artificially increase the size of the map.

I think it was done purely for the all the airplanes incorporated into the game. Then they tossed a couple things to do here and there and made the large mountains as a kind of visual aesthetic in a way so as not to have a flat dry land of nothing.

Shit better be coming out on the PC! It's the reason I've saved up all my vacation at work this year

Hopefully for you guys you won't be forced burdened with signing up for windows live, social club...etc. like in GTA 4 That fiasco was ridiculous, they fear piracy so much on PC yet already made a fortune off of it.

But won't surprise me if they don't come up with some other funky monkey DRM bs as if they think Steam just isn't good enough.

 

[JeffMD]

Seriously.. gta5 is an evolutionary leap from gta4. GTA4 performed like crap on pc because it performed like crap on consoles and was a fledgling engine. It was trying to do alot and is one of the first generation of games to do global shadows. I wasn't surprised the pc engine was sluggish if the console was too. The MAJORITY of GTA4 graphic mods bring down the fps even more. All the pretty screen shots in the world does not hide the fact it performs like crap unless you have a maxed out rig.

GTA5 on the other hand EASILY draws more polys then gta4 ever did, way better character models and cinimatics then 4, all at a smooth 30fps. I can't ever recall the damn game stuttering..ever! The game does an amazing job of reducing details and polys when needed before the fps drops. This helps with the explosions in the game because where the particle and polygon hike always caused gta4 to hitch, they are smooth as butter in gta5. Even if by some fate of the devil himself the game comes out half the speed on pc, it would be tons better then gta4.

As far as the game goes, its gta... I like it as much as I liked 4.. and I like gta4 alot (although I could care less for gta5 online..I don't play it at all).

 

[ImpulsE69]

There is no PC announcement because people know it's coming to PS4. They want people to purchase a PS4. If it ever comes to PC, it will be well after that.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Yes it does.

Gee aren't opinions fun weee

A game should never have miles and miles of space with absolutely nothing there. Look at Skyrim and Fallout 3 for example. They had huge game maps but they were broken up with caves and ruined buildings to explore. GTA5 has trees mountains(which just serve as barriers so you have to drive around them) and sand dunes where they should have more stuff in those areas.

I agree with Hexen, they did it because of the planes and stuff. It had to be stretched out as it is in order to make flying feel somewhat right.

 

[Red Storm]

A game should never have miles and miles of space with absolutely nothing there. Look at Skyrim and Fallout 3 for example. They had huge game maps but they were broken up with caves and ruined buildings to explore. GTA5 has trees mountains(which just serve as barriers so you have to drive around them) and sand dunes where they should have more stuff in those areas.

I agree with Hexen, they did it because of the planes and stuff. It had to be stretched out as it is in order to make flying feel somewhat right.

I disagree, having something around every single corner is annoying, like how Elder Scrolls games have become. A game should present wilderness/the woods/forest close to realism, which is plenty of open space with nothing in particular going on.

 

[norseamd]

I disagree, having something around every single corner is annoying, like how Elder Scrolls games have become. A game should present wilderness/the woods/forest close to realism, which is plenty of open space with nothing in particular going on.

agree

skyrim had much of the content it needed except for the unfinished civil war content and also the bards college and the vigilants

and the map needs 2 times as big in each direction which adds up to 4 times as big. however they could have gone 3 - 5 times as big in each direction

needs more small content and more wilderness and wildlife

also they never made the falmor mod

 

[JeffMD]

There is no PC announcement because people know it's coming to PS4. They want people to purchase a PS4. If it ever comes to PC, it will be well after that.

This was one of my thoughts way back when gta5 first came out. Especially when we saw so many tell tale signs that the game was made in windows, it was probably designed on a multiplatform version of the engine, including next gen. The cost to bring it out on those 2 would be small and the profit, huge.

Again the reason we probably haven't heard anything about THAT is because they are still up to their elbows in GTA5 online. The content being developed by both them and players is probably overwhelming. They are probably waiting on the right moment to freeze it for porting over to next gen.

 

[futurefields]

A game should never have miles and miles of space with absolutely nothing there. Look at Skyrim and Fallout 3 for example. They had huge game maps but they were broken up with caves and ruined buildings to explore. GTA5 has trees mountains(which just serve as barriers so you have to drive around them) and sand dunes where they should have more stuff in those areas.

Rockstar did a tremendous job on the map, it's one of the most universally praised aspects of the game.

 

[Whitestar127]

A game should never have miles and miles of space with absolutely nothing there. Look at Skyrim and Fallout 3 for example. They had huge game maps but they were broken up with caves and ruined buildings to explore. GTA5 has trees mountains(which just serve as barriers so you have to drive around them) and sand dunes where they should have more stuff in those areas.

I agree with Hexen, they did it because of the planes and stuff. It had to be stretched out as it is in order to make flying feel somewhat right.

I had that feeling with Just Cause. It was too barren. And the planes at low speed fly really sloooow. As do you when you skydive.

Just Cause 2 was better. They threw some points of interest, at the very least some barrels to blow up here and there.

But honestly I'd rather have a lot of space and planes than a more confined area and no planes. Maybe modding will allow for more points of interest?

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Personally I think a PC version will only offer higher resolution and AA, more distant details and be buggy as all hell. It will take nodders just as long to get it looking as good as GTA 4 mods and won't look any better other than the art direction is a little better and probably run a little faster.
Yes from the sky GTA 5 looks better with it's better lighting and volumetric fog touches, map is more detailed in some ways but looks like it has fewer npcs and cars on the road than PC GTA 4 vanilla.

Well higher resolutions and AA are more or less free feature wise, they cost next to nothing to implement on a PC version. The other aspect is being able to control the LOD distances, and density of traffic and pedestrians, again these are baked into the consoles as they're fixed hardware, but creating LOD controls on the PC version is super easy and doesn't require any underlying changes to those systems, just giving the user control over what radius the LODs exist at, and what the maximum density of peds and traffic is. That's what we saw in GTA4.

Stuff that takes a lot more work is higher res textures, higher detailed models.

Personally I think that the consoles can kick out a fairly OK level of graphics if the LOD is limited to about 15 feet from your character, we saw Crysis for the original consoles which was quaint compared to the PC version but looked visually better than most of us suspected they would, but had super aggressive LODs where barrels and other objects would appear/disappear a few feet in front of you.

From what I've seen GTA5 looked very sparse when it came to traffic and pedestrian density, as well as unique density, even when a lot of traffic was on screen it'd be the same van or car copied over again, despite there being a lot more unique vehicles, keep the active memory footprint down.

 

[Soundmanred]

even when a lot of traffic was on screen it'd be the same van or car copied over again, despite there being a lot more unique vehicles, keep the active memory footprint down.

This is something I noticed many, many times in GTA5.
Sometimes EVERY car around me was the same model.

 

[HeXen]

Rockstar did a tremendous job on the map, it's one of the most universally praised aspects of the game.

But it's rather shallow. It feels like a shell with repeated textures, objects and robots that all react and do the same things over and over. It's all good for a bit but you cause some mayhem a few times and it gets stale pretty quick since it doesn't vary much. Fully destructible environments would help. Buildings that can actually be entered. A little more realism with the police chases, not the hide and wait 60 seconds as they give up and forget you just mass murdered 500 robots...err, pedestrians for the hundredth time. I have to say the radio stations are seriously disappoint in this one.

Of course it's all about the main mission, the rest just serves as a backdrop to that, to fill in-between an urban story you drive from A to B in an arcade fashion, I get all that but there is definitely a void...a huge one in doing so.

I would like to see more than a main story. Perhaps actual depth found in specific games....Toss in some NFS Underground, Hitman, Thief. Heck toss in a dating sim. Just some side missions without needing much story yet can fulfill the time spent interacting with the game.
They did ok with the golf and Tennis, it had enough depth to fulfill those games but lacked meaning...but why take out the billiards found in San Andreas?

They spent what like $200 million on this. More than Hitman, Thief..etc combined and yet it lacks the depth those have as well. That's kinda what irks me about it. What made me buy it is the same reason I bought the others...it looked rich and alive and I keep falling for it. It's a nice 10 hour or so fun for the main story which is usually pretty good but yet it looks like a world that should get 100 hours of of me, instead I find obstacles that serve to annoy after a period of time.

I'm sure Watchdogs will be the same in that respect, something that looks rich and alive but is really a shell to the main course.

 

[futurefields]

The other aspect is being able to control the LOD distances, and density of traffic and pedestrians, again these are baked into the consoles as they're fixed hardware, but creating LOD controls on the PC version is super easy and doesn't require any underlying changes to those systems, just giving the user control over what radius the LODs exist at, and what the maximum density of peds and traffic is.

This is by far my pickiest aspect and pet-peeve about modern graphics in general. Far too much importance is placed on maximizing detail up close at the expense of crap LOD. What good is it to have super-high poly models and textures if they only show up within a 20-foot room around your character, and you can visibly see the low-resolution and high-resolution models of everything swapping out when you walk around. It distracts me on virtually every open world game. Rockstar has a nice system on GTA5 where things fade in and out but that LOD-room is still awfully small, i think the area where high-resolution shadows pop in is literally like 3-5 feet in front of the player.

If developers would sacrifice a little bit of those ultra high-res upclose graphics in order to extend the LOD range out further games in general would look a lot better in motion.

 

[futurefields]

They spent what like $200 million on this. More than Hitman, Thief..etc combined and yet it lacks the depth those have as well.

Really? I guess we just view things differently. When I play GTA5 and roam about in that world I feel like I'm playing something that is far more immersive than anything in Hitman and Thief. I truly believe Rockstar's engine is head and shoulders above anybody else when it comes to open world environments. When you combine the physics, animation, the amount of stuff happening on screen, nothing even touches it. It makes other games feel like they are missing a dimension.

 

[JeffMD]

This is by far my pickiest aspect and pet-peeve about modern graphics in general. Far too much importance is placed on maximizing detail up close at the expense of crap LOD. What good is it to have super-high poly models and textures if they only show up within a 20-foot room around your character

I thought about this and it is actually pretty simple. If you ask MOST people to look at 2 pictures, one that has medium detail graphics but that detail level spreads near and far, and another picture where high detail objects and effects are shown close to you but down the street LOD is used, most people will pick the second one. It is quite simple, most people won't notice the loss of details in the distance.

I know I am one of those people who get awestruck when I notice trees that are a half a mile away are animated still, but MOST people won't even see that. Also sometimes LOD is just that good that you DON'T notice it. GTA5 is one of those instances, I know the 720p sucks for distant details, but driving or flying, buildings keep alot of their details still. And when I look at the high resolution stills gta5 has released for media packages, I know that gta5 on pc will be one of the best looking pc games ever.